Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Accused appellant Makhan Singh son of Sadiq Mohammad resident of village Mandir Nawan in Faridkot district of Punjab State allegedly visited the residential house of deceased Paramjit Singh, a truck driver serving with the Moga Truck Union, in the same village, to make a demand for money from his wife in his absence. Deceased resented the same and while cutting Barsin grass from inside his own agricultural field in the village, asked the accused, who was standing by his side then, around 10.00 A.M. on Keith 10th March, 1986, as to why he had visited his house in his absence. The accused presumably took it as an insinuation against his character but availing himself of the dominant position of lender qua a borrower curtly said, I did go. What can you do about it ? Both of them then started hurling abuses on each other whereupon Makhan accused took out a pistol from the dub of the lion cloth worn by him and fired a shot from it, which hit the deceased on his back. Occurrence was allegedly seen by Surjit Singh, younger brother of the deceased, his cousin brother named Baldev Singh and nephew of his cousin named Mohinder Singh alias Tinda; who were both cutting Barsin grass in the nearby field at the relevant time and were attracted to the place of occurrence by the hue and cry raised by Surjit Singh younger brother of the deceased. The deceased was initially taken in a jeep to the Civil Hospital at Bagha Purana and therefrom to the Civil Hospital at Faridkot. The deceased, however, breathed his last nearly half an hour after his arrival in the Civil Hospital at Faridkot.

In the course of investigation police recorded the statement of P.W. 4 Nihal Singh under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code Exhibit P.W. 4/A and on its basis arrayed Baldev Singh as coaccused with Makhan as abettor for the crime of murder of Paramjit Singh by Makhan. The accusation was of course given out in P.W. 4/A itself as ingenuity of mental gymnastic of Nihal Singh on the basis of alleged old enmity between Paramjit and Deb on account of Paramjit deceased having allegedly killed Joginder Singh, father of Deb, earlier by running him over underneath the truck driven by him. Since the author of the charge of abetment did not stand by it in the course of evidence, for want of evidence and denial of accusations against Baldev Singh by Nihal Singh P.W. 4, Baldev Singh coaccused was acquitted by the learned trial court.

On being charged with the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, accusedappellant Makhan pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 8th September, 1981 learned trial court convicted accusedappellant Makhan of the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 2000/ as fine. In default or payment of fire accusedappellant was ordered by the learned trial court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence aforesaid against him, accused Makhan has filed Criminal Appeal No. 603DB of 1987 in this court.

We have heard Shri D.S. Chahal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri D. N. Rampal, Advocate, for the State and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

Eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by P.W. 3 Surjit Singh real younger brother of the deceased sounds natural and inspires confidence. After explaining his arrival around the place of occurrence at the relevant time the solitary eyewitness examined by the prosecution states, "At about 10 A.M., when I reached near the held and I saw that my brother Paramjit Singh and Makhan son of Sadiq Mohammad, Musalmann Ghumiar, resident of Mandir Nawan were quarrelling with each other. My brother was cutting Barseem (fodder) at that time and Makhan Singh was standing behind him. My brother had asked Makhan Singh as to why he (Makhan Singh) had gone to his (Paramjit Singh''s) house in his absence to get the money from his wife. Makhan Singh replied that he had gone to his (Paramjit) house and that he could do nothing. Both of them exchanged abuses. Within my sight, Makhan Singh took our a pistol from his (tab and fired at my brother Paramjit Singh, which hit him on his back : I raised an alarm, which attracted my cousin (father''s elder brother son) Baldev Singh and his nephew Mohinder Singh@ Tinda, who were cutting Barseem nearby. Baldev Singh brought a jeep belonging to Butadin from village Mandir Purana and removed Paramjit Singh firstly to Civil Hospital, Bagha Purana in the said jeep, in an injured condition. The doctor referred Paramjit to hospital, Faridkot, as his condition was serious. After reaching Civil Hospital, Faridkot, he expired after sometime. Action may be taken. The eyewitness account of the occurrence has been duly corroborated by the expert medical opinion of Dr. J.S. Dalal) P.W. 1 who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Paramjit Singh at 4.25 P.M. on 10th March 1986 itself. The witness states, "In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was shock and hemorrhage as a result of firearm injury to the viscera of chest. The injury was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was within a few hours and between death and postmortem was within six hours."

The report Exhibit PR submitted by the Ballistic Expert on 5th November, 1986 also reads. The 12bore ELEYKYNOCH, cartridge case marked C/1 contained in parcel `A'' had been fired from 12bore country made pistol marked W/1 contained in parcel B" and, therefore, supports out and out the eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by younger brother of the deceased.

Motive for murder is obviously the ingrained insinuation against the moral character of the accused by the deceased in regard to accused having visited the residential house of the deceased on the alleged pretext of demanding money from his wife in his absence.

Commenting upon the credibility of relation witnesses Hon''ble the Supreme Court observed in Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 Supreme Court 394. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person and hence the mere fact of relationship far from being the foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth".

In this view of the matter, there is obviously no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 8th September, J987 of the learned trial court both in regard to the conviction of the accused appellant as also the sentence awarded to him. Criminal Appeal filed by the accusedappellant is therefore. dismissed.